how much luck do you need , to beat strategyand how much strategy do u need to beat dice,

as changra ( very intellectual poster) said u have to make the dice work for u.

I realised , since i have played the first time the map of City Mogulthat dice dont matter anymore, hurray ( they do of course, but is it worth mentioning? )

And since i have been reading my way through the posts, i realized that everybody is an expert ,like when i read newspapers, in the forum everybody is a politician which reminds me of the saying

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

And when i said something about the dice, it was considered as dicebitching and i got slapped left and right.

Well i have now passed 1000 games, but why did it take me so long to start to get the swing into things ( well I'm not there yet, but i do start to understand the meaning of let the dice work for u ).

So the meaning of this post is really get input from u godplaying Members of CC , to understand dice ( good dice, bad dice what so ever)and to understand strategy.

Of course with every different map, dice and strategy is changing, and thats actually the keyword.

In the beginning of my CC Career , i have stubbornly just played classic.

Of course u have to try different maps to get the feeling of CC.Even every map is different, u can break it down what is dicerelated like classic, 1 vs 1 games i am talking now only, or luxembourg and so on( u have to continue that yourself ), and maps where knowledge is more the keyword than strategy really, since knowledge of a map comes first then u can make a strategy based on your facts of knowledge and experience of course.

When comes experience into play, well if u sit on your comp 24 hours a day, u get it fast,but like me, working, taking care of friends and family, and living a social life which is time consuming, not that easy.

So my plan of this post is really, getting all necessary information of u guys, which will help new players understanding CC, and i would like to explain it like i would to a 6 year old child.( if u cant explain something to a 6 year old child, then u probably dont understand it yourself )meaning, i want to make it as easy as possible , so everybody got something from it ( except the guys who have 3000 points anyway).

I am looking forward to it.

When i started i read a thread from Kiron and Xiangwang? But in this early days i had no idea what they where talking about ( diplomacy etc...)i evern accused them of foul play and cheating- u can look it up, just go back to 2011.

That should be enough for now, but i will carry this on, hope u give me your thoughts of strategy and dice, and all about maps...

I used to roll the daizzFeel the fear in my enemy´s eyesListen as the crowd would sing:Long live the Army Of Kings !

I am by no means an expert player but I feel I have a pretty good handle on the dice. I don't use calculators or anything like that but I have found that over time you get a "6th sense" as to what is doable and when to stop. I suppose by this method the randomness of the dice don't really enter into. I do think that calculators work as an alternative as I am one of the believers that yes, the dice are as random as they come. Could I use calculators to improve my game? Maybe, but it's karma that I thrive on and I trust and thoroughly enjoy my method.So I guess my point is that you can't predict the dice but you can have a sense about them and know their limits in general. That being said, its all about strategy. If the dice just aren't there, you eventually learn to accept it and rest assured that your strategy did the best it could.

Funkyterrance wrote:I am by no means an expert player but I feel I have a pretty good handle on the dice. I don't use calculators or anything like that but I have found that over time you get a "6th sense" as to what is doable and when to stop. I suppose by this method the randomness of the dice don't really enter into. I do think that calculators work as an alternative as I am one of the believers that yes, the dice are as random as they come. Could I use calculators to improve my game? Maybe, but it's karma that I thrive on and I trust and thoroughly enjoy my method.So I guess my point is that you can't predict the dice but you can have a sense about them and know their limits in general. That being said, its all about strategy. If the dice just aren't there, you eventually learn to accept it and rest assured that your strategy did the best it could.

very well said, i comment only quick, but as this post goes on, i will put it together, theres more to comeif the people are willing to leave this post to be alive

I used to roll the daizzFeel the fear in my enemy´s eyesListen as the crowd would sing:Long live the Army Of Kings !

I usually know when I up against a team that is superior to my own (often if I am joining a trips on a map I am unfamilair with) because I am hoping - possibly actually feeling I need - to get good dice in the early rounds. When playing against weaker opposition, I am very blase about going 5 or 10 down on dice, as I assume my deployments and forts will drag my team back into it in the mid.game.

So, and to be honest with you this isn't rocket science, I know I need a bit of luck against better opposition while against weaker I know they will need some luck against me.

One thing I would add though...delusional thinking is one of the greatest dangers Risk players face. The classic mentality of 'I won because of strategy they won because of dice' is so widespread on this site that it astounds me. So many seem utterly unable to accept that the other team may be smarter, or know the game better, or be better coordinated. The dice allow many a ready-made excuse to explain away almost any defeat. I'll give you an example of how I try to think about it: in one of my current trips my man had a 13 on 6 to break the opposition's bonus and more than likely grab full control of the game. He missed in the most abject fashion. From there the game began to slip away. Yet I made sure to recognise that even after his miss, the troop numbers were basically even. I suspect my team will lose this game, and the dice overall have probably not been in our favour (in that in key moments ours have collapsed both offensively and defensively), but I also recognise that the opposition hung in there well when we were on top, that they also had their dice collapses...and also that my own play is not exactly at its best right now (I am a bit distracted with other things). The point of this horribly rambling paragraph? That I consciously try hard to recognise the quality of the opposition's play and that I rarely blame my losses on dice. In the case of this game I think I made the error of basing my team's strategy on the assumption that the 13 on 6 would go through. Everything had been set up on that basis. Once it missed we were exposed. Of course odds are it should have worked, there was some chance my man would go on a tear and end the game there and then. But there was always the possibility he would miss, and I blame myself that I didn't have a plan b.

So that's how I try to think about these things. I know I am not the best teams player here or anything close. I am usually up against teams with FAR more experience than me and I try my best to give a good game to the opposition. When I lose I take my licks and invariably blame myself rather than the dice. I think this basic honesty allows me to improve. I recognise my mistakes and from doing so am able to adjust my strategy.

Finally, once a game is finished win or lose I can usually see the genesis of the result in the opening two rounds. Many things happen in the mid. game that are crucial, but that original basic decision of, for example, whether to deploy in the north and fort in the south or vice versa tends to be what really influnced the result. Round 1 in a trips is not that dice-dependent (often), but the original positioning is what really influences the game. Invariably when I lose I blame my opening strategy...when I win I tend to see the opening as equally key.

In the past i used to get frustrated and upset, because it was unfair- i thoughtnow hold on a moment, there are games u know in rd 1 , it is game overso why waste your energy on that game? call it game over, dont give up, keep fighting, but dont put negative energy into it,i just played a speed game where i knew , its not gonna work, that easy, i had that sixth sense ( i started the game and knew it )so i stopped getting angry, i startet to accept it as it is, because i know, the next game will be differentbut to keep the head over the water u should remember not to let your head hang down

( the easiest advice here is not playing 1 vs 1 games , i know that, but i havent reached that stage yet being WILLING to understand that,that will come with the time, i know )

I used to roll the daizzFeel the fear in my enemy´s eyesListen as the crowd would sing:Long live the Army Of Kings !

Mr Changsha wrote:One thing I would add though...delusional thinking is one of the greatest dangers Risk players face. The classic mentality of 'I won because of strategy they won because of dice' is so widespread on this site that it astounds me. So many seem utterly unable to accept that the other team may be smarter, or know the game better, or be better coordinated.

While I agree that this may be the mentality of some beginning/casual players I don't think that very many experienced players fall prey to this delusion. The dice eventually come out in the wash, more or less, so it boils down to strategy on either side. Superior strategy+superior dice equals a win, superior strategy+equal dice equals a win, superior strategy+inferior dice is a possible win given key opportunities as you described. As far as overlooking the fact that other players have superior strategy to oneself, well that becomes evident when your dice are equal or better than your opponent and you end up losing lol. If you are paying attention its a pretty hard fact to deny.

Mr Changsha wrote:I usually know when I up against a team that is superior to my own (often if I am joining a trips on a map I am unfamilair with) because I am hoping - possibly actually feeling I need - to get good dice in the early rounds. When playing against weaker opposition, I am very blase about going 5 or 10 down on dice, as I assume my deployments and forts will drag my team back into it in the mid.game.

So, and to be honest with you this isn't rocket science, I know I need a bit of luck against better opposition while against weaker I know they will need some luck against me.

One thing I would add though...delusional thinking is one of the greatest dangers Risk players face. The classic mentality of 'I won because of strategy they won because of dice' is so widespread on this site that it astounds me. So many seem utterly unable to accept that the other team may be smarter, or know the game better, or be better coordinated. The dice allow many a ready-made excuse to explain away almost any defeat. I'll give you an example of how I try to think about it: in one of my current trips my man had a 13 on 6 to break the opposition's bonus and more than likely grab full control of the game. He missed in the most abject fashion. From there the game began to slip away. Yet I made sure to recognise that even after his miss, the troop numbers were basically even. I suspect my team will lose this game, and the dice overall have probably not been in our favour (in that in key moments ours have collapsed both offensively and defensively), but I also recognise that the opposition hung in there well when we were on top, that they also had their dice collapses...and also that my own play is not exactly at its best right now (I am a bit distracted with other things). The point of this horribly rambling paragraph? That I consciously try hard to recognise the quality of the opposition's play and that I rarely blame my losses on dice. In the case of this game I think I made the error of basing my team's strategy on the assumption that the 13 on 6 would go through. Everything had been set up on that basis. Once it missed we were exposed. Of course odds are it should have worked, there was some chance my man would go on a tear and end the game there and then. But there was always the possibility he would miss, and I blame myself that I didn't have a plan b.

So that's how I try to think about these things. I know I am not the best teams player here or anything close. I am usually up against teams with FAR more experience than me and I try my best to give a good game to the opposition. When I lose I take my licks and invariably blame myself rather than the dice. I think this basic honesty allows me to improve. I recognise my mistakes and from doing so am able to adjust my strategy.

Finally, once a game is finished win or lose I can usually see the genesis of the result in the opening two rounds. Many things happen in the mid. game that are crucial, but that original basic decision of, for example, whether to deploy in the north and fort in the south or vice versa tends to be what really influnced the result. Round 1 in a trips is not that dice-dependent (often), but the original positioning is what really influences the game. Invariably when I lose I blame my opening strategy...when I win I tend to see the opening as equally key.

Not for nothing but did you have to quote his whole novel? I am not saying either way but it's just hard to tell the difference between actual agreement/comprehension and ass kissing when someone makes a huge quotation and then offers two words of their own that don't have any particular meaning in themselves. It also takes up a shitload of space.

Mr Changsha wrote:One thing I would add though...delusional thinking is one of the greatest dangers Risk players face. The classic mentality of 'I won because of strategy they won because of dice' is so widespread on this site that it astounds me. So many seem utterly unable to accept that the other team may be smarter, or know the game better, or be better coordinated.

While I agree that this may be the mentality of some beginning/casual players I don't think that very many experienced players fall prey to this delusion. The dice eventually come out in the wash, more or less, so it boils down to strategy on either side. Superior strategy+superior dice equals a win, superior strategy+equal dice equals a win, superior strategy+inferior dice is a possible win given key opportunities as you described. As far as overlooking the fact that other players have superior strategy to oneself, well that becomes evident when your dice are equal or better than your opponent and you end up losing lol. If you are paying attention its a pretty hard fact to deny.

We can really only base our views on this from our own personal experience. I have to say that in mine most players experienced or not suffer from this delusion..if only to a certain extent. That when we win it is due to a superior strategy and when we lose it is due to dice. I also believe that this common delusion actively and negatively affects play, for if one naturally blames their losses on dice (and the dice always throw up the odd bad result) then the player doesn't look for the real cause of their loss...blaming the dice is liking wrapping oneself in a comfort blanket of determined ignorance...

Mr Changsha wrote:We can really only base our views on this from our own personal experience. I have to say that in mine most players experienced or not suffer from this delusion..if only to a certain extent. That when we win it is due to a superior strategy and when we lose it is due to dice. I also believe that this common delusion actively and negatively affects play, for if one naturally blames their losses on dice (and the dice always throw up the odd bad result) then the player doesn't look for the real cause of their loss...blaming the dice is liking wrapping oneself in a comfort blanket of determined ignorance...

I think it was Natty who likened the irrationality and fervour of dicebitching to religious belief,the similie of the comfort blanket is also apt.

Not for nothing but did you have to quote his whole novel? I am not saying either way but it's just hard to tell the difference between actual agreement/comprehension and ass kissing when someone makes a huge quotation and then offers two words of their own that don't have any particular meaning in themselves. It also takes up a shitload of space.

heh... You obviously don't know me at all... I don't kiss anyone's ass... but it's interesting that that is what enters your mind.. if you don't like, don't pay attention to it... and yea.. it's a real nightmare to scroll past a long post... real, real sorry about that bubb..

Mr Changsha wrote:I usually know when I up against a team that is superior to my own (often if I am joining a trips on a map I am unfamilair with) because I am hoping - possibly actually feeling I need - to get good dice in the early rounds. When playing against weaker opposition, I am very blase about going 5 or 10 down on dice, as I assume my deployments and forts will drag my team back into it in the mid.game.

So, and to be honest with you this isn't rocket science, I know I need a bit of luck against better opposition while against weaker I know they will need some luck against me.

One thing I would add though...delusional thinking is one of the greatest dangers Risk players face. The classic mentality of 'I won because of strategy they won because of dice' is so widespread on this site that it astounds me. So many seem utterly unable to accept that the other team may be smarter, or know the game better, or be better coordinated. The dice allow many a ready-made excuse to explain away almost any defeat. I'll give you an example of how I try to think about it: in one of my current trips my man had a 13 on 6 to break the opposition's bonus and more than likely grab full control of the game. He missed in the most abject fashion. From there the game began to slip away. Yet I made sure to recognise that even after his miss, the troop numbers were basically even. I suspect my team will lose this game, and the dice overall have probably not been in our favour (in that in key moments ours have collapsed both offensively and defensively), but I also recognise that the opposition hung in there well when we were on top, that they also had their dice collapses...and also that my own play is not exactly at its best right now (I am a bit distracted with other things). The point of this horribly rambling paragraph? That I consciously try hard to recognise the quality of the opposition's play and that I rarely blame my losses on dice. In the case of this game I think I made the error of basing my team's strategy on the assumption that the 13 on 6 would go through. Everything had been set up on that basis. Once it missed we were exposed. Of course odds are it should have worked, there was some chance my man would go on a tear and end the game there and then. But there was always the possibility he would miss, and I blame myself that I didn't have a plan b.

So that's how I try to think about these things. I know I am not the best teams player here or anything close. I am usually up against teams with FAR more experience than me and I try my best to give a good game to the opposition. When I lose I take my licks and invariably blame myself rather than the dice. I think this basic honesty allows me to improve. I recognise my mistakes and from doing so am able to adjust my strategy.

Finally, once a game is finished win or lose I can usually see the genesis of the result in the opening two rounds. Many things happen in the mid. game that are crucial, but that original basic decision of, for example, whether to deploy in the north and fort in the south or vice versa tends to be what really influnced the result. Round 1 in a trips is not that dice-dependent (often), but the original positioning is what really influences the game. Invariably when I lose I blame my opening strategy...when I win I tend to see the opening as equally key.

I do not disagree with you on the perils of delusional thinking; however, you seem to take the cause-and-effect relationship between dice and planning too far. For example, yes, the opening strategy and original position are important; however, with some games, Lady Luck sleeps with the other team the entire game, or she's withholding too much of her services for your team. In other words, for some instances--no matter how well you planned--the blame falls on the dice. Doing X, Y and Z instead of A, B, and C would not have mattered because chance in some cases will render such changes moot.

The problem with your perspective on this matter, which if I'm not mistaken seems to be 100% internal locus of control, is that there are some aberrations which are beyond your system's capability to correct. W. Edwards Deming, a production operations big shot who created Systems Theory, basically said that there are anomalies which fall outside of your system, i.e. your firm and management style. Trying to correct for these anomalies, or seeking to have a "zero-defect" goal, is not plausible because you may ruin the system while attempting to correct for some anomalies.

This isn't to say that one should simply write off all losses to bad dice and attribute all wins to superior strategy. That would be delusional. My point is that there are some things which cannot be corrected for and should not be corrected for--by top management (like the Dictator). Usually, such anomalies would be dealt by "lower management" or the "workers."

For example, there is one thing which is difficult to manage. While a teammate throws 13 v 6 and is incurring high casualties, sometimes it's best for them to stop at 8v6 or 6v5, etc. We all suffer from that problem of frustration leading to constant dice throwing and knowing when enough is enough, but this is a situation grounded in local knowledge which is difficult for the top management to control for.

"Special Causes and Common Causes": Deming considered anomalies in quality to be variations outside the control limits of a process. Such variations could be attributed to one-time events called "special causes" or to repeated events called "common causes" that hinder quality.

Acceptable Defects: Rather than waste efforts on zero-defect goals, Deming stressed the importance of establishing a level of variation, or anomalies, acceptable to the recipient (or customer) in the next phase of a process. Often, some defects are quite acceptable, and efforts to remove all defects would be an excessive waste of time and money.

...

"What is the variation trying to tell us about a process, about the people in the process?"[23] Dr. Shewhart created the basis for the control chart and the concept of a state of statistical control by carefully designed experiments. While Shewhart drew from pure mathematical statistical theories, he understood that data from physical processes never produce a "normal distribution curve" (a Gaussian distribution, also commonly referred to as a "bell curve"). He discovered that observed variation in manufacturing data did not always behave the same way as data in nature (Brownian motion of particles). Shewhart concluded that while every process displays variation, some processes display controlled variation that is natural to the process, while others display uncontrolled variation that is not present in the process causal system at all times.[33] Deming renamed these distinctions "common cause" for chance causes and "special cause" for assignable causes. He did this so the focus would be placed on those responsible for doing something about the variation, rather than the source of the variation. It is top management’s responsibility to address "common cause" variation, and therefore it is management’s responsibility to make improvements to the whole system. Because "special cause" variation is assignable, workers, supervisors or middle managers that have direct knowledge of the assignable cause best address this type of specific intervention.[9]

It is an interesting concept to suggest that I am equally delusional, in that I feel I have a level of control greater than I actually have. To answer it, one must consider one's experience as well as the perception of that experience.

In my experience my trips games, the majority of my dubs games, most of my large standard games and my 8 man dubs games have not seemed to be overly affected by dice. Of course they were a factor, but I feel that most were won through strategy (whether I won them or not) and the exploitation of another's weaker strategy. Some were won through dice, and I of course accept that, but most weren't.

But is this (perfectly genuine) belief based on my faulty perceptions? Do I over-emphasise the level of control I have over the result? Do I unconsciously forget the dice-related events and focus on those due to strategy? Am I the opposite side of Natty's delusional dice zealot?

Am I the fundamentalist athiest to his raving believer?

I have to accept that is possible.

Finally, maybe it is time a new madness was begun. A thread should be started for those who want to proclaim that dice don't affect them at all and posts should be made detailing in perfect detail with charts, tables and gamelogs how the player was not even touched by dice. I expect nutty posts in capitalised letters in a red font to proclaim '20 games in a row and the dice have not won or lost me one game f*ck you lack' and I see posters in the woodruff mold oh so patiently explaining how, for example, '...the fact that your team was 12 down at the end of round 2 on equal deploys proves quite conclusively, you utter fuck-wit, that dice affected your game'. Such protestations should of course be met with patronising scorn. 'You weren't there man...you didn't see the decisions I made'.

I think that dice do play a role, but I agree too much emphasis is placed on them. Bad dice upsets me for a minute, but if I recognize a mistake I made after the fact, it bothers me for a long time, so I can live with the bad dice a lot easier. I think that's why so many complain and blame the dice. It's hard to admit mistakes or that someone else is a better player. We all have too much pride, I guess.

Mr Changsha wrote: I also believe that this common delusion actively and negatively affects play, for if one naturally blames their losses on dice (and the dice always throw up the odd bad result) then the player doesn't look for the real cause of their loss...blaming the dice is liking wrapping oneself in a comfort blanket of determined ignorance...

Now this I agree with completely. I have known some players who have plateaued in rank due to suffering from this exact delusion. They are also the ones who quit cc for periods of time out of frustration. "F***ing dice" was a common exclamation by these players. Upon reflecting I also see how one's personal experiences could determine whether or not one thought that any seasoned players would fall prey to this delusion. I haven't experienced this very much in my travels but I haven't been around as long either so chances are you are correct on this point. Considering human nature, it's not all that shocking in retrospect. As you say, wrapping oneself in this blanket is a duel edged sword in that it protects one from bruising one's ego but also protects one from improving their overall strategy. We both obviously chose to shed this blanket at some point in order to grow as players.

rhp 1 wrote:heh... You obviously don't know me at all... I don't kiss anyone's ass... but it's interesting that that is what enters your mind.. if you don't like, don't pay attention to it... and yea.. it's a real nightmare to scroll past a long post... real, real sorry about that bubb..

Yeah I don't know you, that's why I asked for clarification instead of outright accusing you. I hadn't really made any conclusion other than that you agreed with Mr.C and felt it necessary to post that you did along with a huge quote. I have a tendency to trust my first impressions a little too much and therefore have been working on it. However, if I had more information it would be a lot harder to draw my own conclusions.

I try to sum it up, we have strategy ,1.) for a decent strategy first would be good knowledge of the map ( where to move from where, bonuses, best positioning place ).2.) the settings are important, its a difference if u play no spoil , or escalating, fog etc... speed game, freestyle game3.) at 1 vs 1 games it is important if u start first ( mostly this advantage can be used to win the game )4.) If its not 1 vs 1, on many maps diplomacy will become very handy, like hives knights city mogul and more.

u can comment on no: 1, 2 , 3 ,4

I have only limited time, so as time goes on, information will be collected and put together, i m going on a journey here.

About the dice is not much to say, if u have a good roll be happy, if not take it easy, it will might change.

Last edited by AslanTheKing on Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

I used to roll the daizzFeel the fear in my enemy´s eyesListen as the crowd would sing:Long live the Army Of Kings !

were talking strategy, were talking dice, but there are programms like bob,what do you gain from installing this tools, do they help, do you see a difference if u play?And if what are your favorites, if u would list them u would help me getting better.

I used to roll the daizzFeel the fear in my enemy´s eyesListen as the crowd would sing:Long live the Army Of Kings !

AslanTheKing wrote:On some maps, its really a big deal if u start first( and dice kills strategy or what ever was your plan, strategy comes in hand to rethink all over again)

I don't play those maps. Considering our earlier discussion about strategy being key it stands to reason that you would avoid any options that add more of the element of luck to a game because they lessen your ability to control the outcome. I suppose the reverse is true if you looking to get the jump on someone who you think may be more skillful.

Mr Changsha wrote:It is an interesting concept to suggest that I am equally delusional, in that I feel I have a level of control greater than I actually have. To answer it, one must consider one's experience as well as the perception of that experience.

In my experience my trips games, the majority of my dubs games, most of my large standard games and my 8 man dubs games have not seemed to be overly affected by dice. Of course they were a factor, but I feel that most were won through strategy (whether I won them or not) and the exploitation of another's weaker strategy. Some were won through dice, and I of course accept that, but most weren't.

But is this (perfectly genuine) belief based on my faulty perceptions? Do I over-emphasise the level of control I have over the result? Do I unconsciously forget the dice-related events and focus on those due to strategy? Am I the opposite side of Natty's delusional dice zealot?

Am I the fundamentalist athiest to his raving believer?

I have to accept that is possible.

It completely depends upon what settings you choose and the relative skill of your opponent.

If you always play strategic maps against moronic opponents, its very unlikely dice will factor in more than occasionally.

If you play doodle with equally skilled opponents, only dice, drop and cards could only ever be the important factor over time.

So, you may very well be right that the dice never matter in your games, but much as the Christian God rules the United States and believers there are correct, your beliefs would become invalid when you moved to an Islamic region where Allah has control, or Jerusalem, where Jesus' powers are greatly diminished.

Now, all of these believers will tell you their God controls all regions, but, when you see the reality of the situation, based on pure math, it does seem to be quite delusional as would your beliefs that dice dont matter much when you leave your particular region[of games].

AslanTheKing wrote:On some maps, its really a big deal if u start first( and dice kills strategy or what ever was your plan, strategy comes in hand to rethink all over again)

I don't play those maps. Considering our earlier discussion about strategy being key it stands to reason that you would avoid any options that add more of the element of luck to a game because they lessen your ability to control the outcome. I suppose the reverse is true if you looking to get the jump on someone who you think may be more skillful.

It is a really big deal if you start first on a lot of maps 1v1,with one important proviso,the person going first has to understand all aspects of the map.I only play 1v1 on a limited number of maps and settings,my reasoning being it is better to play a few quite well than many averagely or worse.I've lost count of the times I've thought I'm going 2nd here my chances should be slim only to see my opponent go charging in without a care and totally squander a game winning opportunity.Sometimes it's obvious they don't even understand the bonuses before starting.To achieve and maintain a 58% win rate you have to win most of your games starting 1st and quite lot going 2nd as well which is often dependent on your opponents abilities.